In this, the twenty-ninth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky, those of you who have been asking for a timeline finally get what you have been asking for. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

Those of you who have been following this series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri (UCM) President Aaron Podolefsky probably have a good idea of what we suspect to be going on there.  However, there have been a couple of calls for us to provide a summary of the story so far.  We’d have posted this sooner, but we had to run it past legal first. We’ve been given the all-clear, so here it is.

The non-renewal of Dr. Podolefsky’s contract seems an utterly bizarre decision, given his numerous accomplishments at UCM: he significantly raised the university’s academic profile, evidenced by setting university records for the highest quality first-year student class, highest graduation rate, and highest job placement rate (96.8%) in the institution’s history. In fall 2008, UCM enrolled the largest first-year class and the largest total enrollment in 15 years.  He also enjoys strong support among the faculty, students and the Warrensburg community.  More than 70% of respondents in a Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal poll said that he should be retained by the university, and more than 80% of respondents voted the same way in a poll in the UCM campus newspaper, the Muleskinner.  In October 2009, a majority (142) of tenured faculty members signed a petition asking the Board of Governors to extend Podolefsky’s contract.  A small minority of faculty expressed opposition to Podolefsky at that time, but most of them were citing factually incorrect information regarding a gift to the university, a vendor agreement with a cola company, or a recent Campus Climate Survey.  Perhaps it’s just coincidence, but so much of the false information being circulated seems to have a common point of origin – one particular college-a college whose dean, again perhaps coincidentally, is alleged to have instructed faculty members not to sign the petition in support of Podolefsky. The way the factors converge here, it really does stretch credulity and defy statistics that it should all be mere coincidence.

We heard a whole bunch of rumors about the possible motivations of the members of the Board of Governors (BoG) so we decided to do a little digging and check the validity of the allegations via a number of Missouri Sunshine Law requests and a re-examination of known events.  What we found was very disturbing, and the lowest common denominator seems always to be the Athletics Program.

Making the UCM Athletics Program live within its budget

Since both President Podolefsky and the BoG refuse to discuss the matter and the BoG won’t reveal their motives, saying only that “sometimes with new BoG members, there is a desire to go in a new direction,” so we are unable to come to a definitive conclusion,  we leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions about the following:

Prior to Fiscal Year 2008, the UCM Athletics Programs was regularly running annual deficits in excess of $400,000, according to data received via Mo. Sunshine Law requests.  This shortage was reconciled at the end of each fiscal year, with the University general fund making up the difference.  In FY2006, this overspending reached an all-time high; in addition to a healthy $4.4 million base budget, $400,000 in generated funds (ticket sales, concessions, etc.), and Foundation contributions (amount unknown), the University provided two separate infusions of money to Athletics, totaling more than $700,000.  The following year, the general fund adjustment to cover overspending was $415,000.

It would certainly seem that a program regularly running up such deficits does not have a sufficient budget to cover expenses.  Therefore, in FY2008 a new Athletics Fee was added to student tuition, resulting in an increase in funds generated for Athletics that brought the total to over $900,000.  This Athletics Fee was proposed by President Podolefsky.  

Increasing the Athletics budget so substantially ought to have made him a popular figure among those in Athletics and their supporters, right? It might have, except something else happened in FY2008: in spite of the increases, the Athletics Program spent over $6.3 million, again running a deficit, this time spending $112,000 beyond what was budgeted – and this time it was not reconciled from the University general fund.  The following year, the Athletics budget was reduced by $112,000.  In FY2009, Athletics again went over budget by $142,000, and once again the budget was reduced by the corresponding amount.

Those numbers seem to tell a pretty compelling story.  President Podolefsky, perhaps for the first time in the university’s history, made a serious attempt to rein in general fund overspending by the Athletics Program, replacing it, for the first time with a student athletics fee.  Athletics got more money, but they were forced to live with a set budget.  For shame!  

But wait! There’s more! We learned soon enough that this was not his only sin involving Athletics.  

Naming a new Vice President for University Advancement

In 2007, UCM began a search for a Vice President of University Advancement (VPUA); the person appointed to this position would be in charge of the overall strategic plan to attract and utilize outside donations to the university.  It is common knowledge that Athletic Director Jerry Hughes wanted this position but didn’t make the cut – not because the President didn’t want him, but because the hiring committee didn’t want him in that position.  We are unaware of his personal reaction to being denied the position, but it does not seem coincidental that, on the day that the appointment of Larry Cowan to the VPUA. position was announced, a local radio sports-talk deejay and close associate of the UCM Athletics Director began a campaign of publicly disparaging President Podolefsky, as well as Larry Cowan and Betty Roberts, the V.P. of Admin and Finance who chaired the hiring committee members.  (Perhaps it is coincidence that all three of these people are minorities, but the deejay in question, Greg Hassler, has continued to “misspeak” in his criticism of Podolefsky, recently drawing the ire of one of UCM’s most important and respected donors for anti-Semitic remarks about the UCM President and his family.)  Some months earlier, Mr. Hassler seemed more than happy to take advantage upon learning that the President’s wife intended to provide legal representation for six local female athletes who had accused a Warrensburg High School coach of inappropriate conduct. Mr. Hassler was very successful promoting her actions as controversial and in dividing public opinion regarding both the alleged incident and Ms. Podolefsky’s professional responsibilities.

Paying off the Stadium bond

Limiting excessive spending and spurning the aspirations of the Athletics Director might be damning enough, but President Podolefsky apparently went for a hat-trick in 2007 and committed a third sin:  He insisted that certain funds generated from the UCM Stadium stop being misused.  When the UCM Stadium was replaced, the university had to take out a $4 million bond to cover the costs ($1 million came from a donation).  The 1999 bond agreement states that all funds generated from the rental of the Stadium suites, approximately $44,000 per year, were to be used to pay off the bond.  Originally, rental funds were deposited in the foundation and then returned to the university to cover the bond payment, but several years before Podolefsky’s arrival, this was changed.  According to documents received via Sunshine Law requests, until FY2008 these funds were not used as specified and required in the bond agreement. Besides being in violation of the bond agreement, the $44,000 obviously had to be made up by the general fund.  Given the other fiscal reforms introduced by President Podolefsky in that year, it is reasonable to believe that putting an end to this situation-which had previously, and perhaps improperly, benefited UCM Athletics-was his doing as well.  

A very pro-Athletics Board of Governors

But what does all of this have to do with the UCM Board of Governors?  Quite a bit, the evidence would suggest.  Three of the four BoG members who recently voted not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract were appointed shortly after the UCM Athletics Director did not receive the VPUA position; it is public knowledge that Mr. Hughes accompanied one of them, Weldon Brady, to his swearing-in ceremony in Jefferson City.  All four of the BoG members who voted against renewal cite UCM Athletics as a main tie to the university, and two of them are former UCM football coaches.  Problems between the new BoG members and President Podolefsky must have started right away, since Board member Richard Philips approached Faculty Senate President Jack Rogers in November 2007-less than three months after UCM was first named one of “America’s Best Colleges” by U.S. News & World Report-to ask how the faculty would respond if the Board were to buy out President Podolefsky’s contract.  His response was clearly in the negative.

Another oft-cited rumor around campus is that the BoG voted in December 2008 not to extend Dr. Podolefsky’s contract.  The BoG has thus far refused to deny that the vote occurred, saying only that there was no “reportable” (i.e. final) vote.  Is it any wonder that, beginning last spring, Dr. Podolefsky began to take more seriously his nominations for other Presidential positions?  

I heard it on the radio

More recently, we have the BoG’s actions, or lack thereof, which also seem to demonstrate an inclination to “let things slide” any time the UCM Athletics program is involved.  Board members seem hesitant to act regarding Mr. Hassler’s recent radio statements (cited above).  In response to the letter of complaint from UCM donor Benoit Wesly, Board President Richard Philips promised to take action at following Board meeting on October 29.  We were at that meeting, and we can verify that the matter was not discussed at all, and we have no reason to believe that any action was taken subsequently in closed session, since such discussion or action would not fall under the exclusionary provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law.  I have personally inquired via email asking Mr. Philips to comment on his failure to address Mr. Wesly’s concerns but I have not received the courtesy of a response to either request.

If that were not insulting enough, Mr. Hassler’s relationship with the university seems as strong as ever; he was subsequently recognized on the field at the UCM football game on October 31 for his sponsorship.

All in the family

Perhaps the most important commonality between the UCM Athletics Director and some members of the Board of Governors is their apparent mutual belief that they should not have to answer to anyone, for any reason.  Four of the BoG members pressed ahead with the vote not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract, in spite of all the clear indicators (cited above) that he is strongly supported by the majority of the UCM and Warrensburg community.  The “path forward” recently announced by the Board, detailing the upcoming presidential search, does not inspire confidence.  There was no Request for Proposal, as is standard in such situations, the faculty were not involved in any way, and the decision was made in closed session to pay $80,000 to a small Missouri firm rather than a national firm to conduct the search.  The firm in question has almost no experience in conducting this kind of search, but apparently they have one important qualification: personal relationships with BoG members.  This is not how such important processes are normally handled.  The trend of bringing in friends of BoG members seemed to be evident even in the selection of at least one of the new Board appointments on November 6 – Marvin “Bunky” Wright.  While it is the Missouri State Governor who makes the appointments, Board members normally make nominations and have some say in who is appointed.

Athletics reigns supreme

So, was Aaron Podolefsky fired (ahem, did not have his contract renewed) over athletics?  We don’t know for certain, but it sure smells like a coup d’état to us.  And is that necessarily a bad thing?  Yes, yes it is.  Not because Athletics shouldn’t have a role at a state university; indeed, one could even call Athletics an important component of the institution.  Based on the introduction of the new fee and several major construction projects in support of athletics, it would seem that President Podolefsky thinks so as well.  Apparently, however, he does not believe that Athletics should be the key driver of the institution and above any reproach.  We agree.  It would seem that the Board of Governors does not.

Who cares?

We do, and if you’re a taxpayer in Missouri, you should care, too.  A robust state university system is a key driver of our economy and supplies us with the skilled labor and brainpower that drive our state’s future.  Having one of these universities move backwards in order for the institution to play a subservient role an Athletics program benefits no one outside of a small “club.”  Dr. Podolefsky acted in support of a healthy Athletics program, just as he acted successfully to improve institutional quality and bring national attention to UCM.  He put an end to inappropriate institutional habits, but instead of being recognized for it, he was let go the board declined to renew his contract.  So what direction does the Board want to take the university?  We don’t know, but at
least one Board member has questioned the university’s decision to have “moderately selective” enrollment, one of the key factors in the institution’s recent successes.  UCM’s future does not look bright, and it is for this reason that we believe the Board of Governors has failed in their responsibility to provide appropriate stewardship for the university.  

The real path forward

As long as this summary seems, it just scratches the surface of what we’ve uncovered in this investigative series.  We’ll keep digging, but we think there’s enough information here for you to come to your own conclusion.  If you agree with us, what can you do?  Assuming you’re a Missouri resident, or an alum, or just a supporter of the institution, then you’re well within your rights to make your voice heard.  Of course, you could always contact the BoG members themselves, but we don’t think they’re listening, so a better option would be to contact Governor Nixon’s office – the phone number is 573-751-3222, and here is the link to the contact page on the Governor’s official website – since he is the only person in the state with the power to improve the situation by removing Board members.  At this point, we see no other solution.

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Garbo speaks! (November 12, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle (November 13, 2009)

Rep. Roy Blunt has been taking it on the chin lately about the contributions he’s accepted. USA Today has a chart showing that he has raised more money from lobbyists than any other single legislator. So far this year, he’s taken in more than $310,000. We all know what we all think about a legislator heavily beholden to–yechh–lobbyists. The other media piece tarnishing him is an ad that a group of liberal organizations (The League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, MoveOn, and Americans United for Change) are airing that show the “stain” on his record. He’s taken in a million bucks from Big Oil over the years, so the ad shows his hand dripping oil all over constituents when he shakes a woman’s hand or pats a man’s shoulder or hugs a child.

Under the circumstances, Blunt deserves a certain amount of respect for his response in a televised interview about the ad. He can tap dance with the best of them. Oh, you may think it’s funny that, when asked if he’s taken a million dollars from Big Oil, he basically responds: I don’t know, but Robin Carnahan’s taken $20,000. Laugh if you want, but there’s some merit to his “We’re both whores, but I’m a higher priced one” argument. Oh, oops, he didn’t put it that way. He said that IF there’s anything wrong with taking such money–and there’s not, because he votes according to his conscience, and businesses give him money because they approve of his principles, not because they could ever, heaven forfend, influence his vote–but IF there’s anything wrong with taking money from Big Oil, then Carnahan is guilty as well as he. And besides, his million came in  over fifteen years. It’s not as awful as it sounds. (That works out, by the way, to something  under $67,000 a year, every year for fifteen years or so, which means, to return to the whoring metaphor, that he’s three times as good at it as Carnahan, and has been for a long time.)

Anyway, he adds, the ad is the dirty work of SEIU, ACORN, and the League of Conservation Voters. (Subtext: we all know–even though they had zilch to do with the ad–that you can’t trust the thugs at SEIU or the fraudsters at ACORN. But you can trust me.)

See what I mean? It was a minor masterpiece of sidestepping the question. He was less skillful, though, when interviewed about the USA Today article that revealed his contributions from lobbyists, because he left himself open to the word “lie”. Not that Dave Catanese of KY3 used that word.

When Catanese asked him about the article that said he’d received more lobbyist money than any other candidate, Blunt corrected him. “No, no, they said PAC money.” And he went on at some condescending length about the difference between PAC and lobbyist contributions. In fact, though, the USA Today article was about “lobbyist money.” The word “PAC” was nowhere in there. Catanese took the correction, by the way, mentioning only near the end of his blog about the interview that Blunt “misspoke.”

So he sorta got away with that misrepresentation. Give him credit. Roy Blunt is a skillful talker, especially when interviewers let him steamroll them. In the first video above, he reeled off the Republican talking points about how much cap-and-trade legislation (and he was above calling it “cap-and-tax” as Todd Akin does) would cost Americans. He dwelt on the job loss–and there may well be some–that could result from switching to alternative energy. But job loss and job creation will more or less even out. Only someone who believes, as Blunt does, that “there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth”, would argue that just because China is building coal plants it’s okay for us to continue down that path. If this planet fries, those coal and oil jobs Blunt is so enamored of will go up in smoke with it. And if it fries, it will partly be the fault of willfully ignorant politicians like him convincing gullible Americans that there is no solid evidence of global warming. Only 57 percent of our citizens currently believe that global warming is incontrovertibly real. Last year, 71 percent believed it and three years ago, 87 percent did.

So this business of taking a million bucks from those global warming deniers at Big Oil matters, Roy. Whoring after campaign money is a sin. Whoring after Big Oil money is a mortal sin.

This is the twenty-eighth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

From a Gentleman’s Agreement (1947):

“….But I’ve come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew. People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That’s the biggest discovery I’ve made. The good people. The nice people….”

The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle came to campus this week to cover the story:

Was anti-Semitism factor in college prexy’s exit?

Written by Rick Hellman, Editor  

Friday, 13 November 2009 12:00

“….It’s not appropriate for me to speculate about Mr. Hassler’s motives,” said Podolefsky. “But I have been asked repeatedly what he has against me and Ronnie, because this has been going on for two and a half years.”

Hassler returned The Chronicle’s request for comment via e-mail, saying:

“First of all let me say that I am not anti-Semitic, I love all people of all religions. I have never stated anything about anyone’s religion on or off the air. People have taken a comment out of context and have spun it for their purpose. All I have done is question the leadership and decisions that were made by the President of UCM … It is unfortunate that people that have never met or talked to me can draw incorrect conclusions about the type of person I am….”

The transcript from October 14th:

Greg Hassler: …The University of Central Missouri. End of an era.

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

Greg Hassler: Aaron Podolefsky. Out. We’ve talked about it for a long time….

….The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally was, for years there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?

Marion Woods: Yep.

Greg Hassler: Drive by. He stopped that. I mean I think every religion should be able to celebrate, uh, in their own way, but, I mean we do live in Warrensburg, Missouri. This is America. You know. Let’s bring that back. How ’bout that?

Marion Woods: Wasn’t that the Christmas tree at the quadrangle?

Greg Hassler: No, there was also one at Selmo Park.

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

Gregg Hassler: In the, in the yard, area there, so. I mean, I don’t know, it’s jus… It, it was a bad fit from the get go. It’s, it’s over…

Richard Phillips, the President of the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors was also quoted in the Chronicle story:

….Phillips responded to The Chronicle’s e-mailed inquiry about the matter with this:

“As you should know, discussions with regard to personnel matters of the University are not appropriate for public disclosure. Contrary to the tone and implications of your questions, the University does not discriminate as to anyone on any basis.

“I was appointed to the UCM Board of Governors in February of 2005, a few weeks after Aaron was selected to serve as president. Not once has Aaron’s religion been mentioned in any Board discussion….”

That’s interesting. There’s only one mention in the article about not tolerating people who do.

On October 23, 2009 Richard Phillips wrote in reply to Benoit Wesly:

…We have a Board meeting next week on October 29 and I will bring this matter to the attention of our Board and will get back to you on any action taken.  Please be assured our University will not tolerate discriminatory acts against any group and I will personally look into this matter…

As Blue Girl wrote:

…I attended the Board of Governors meeting. I recorded the Board of Governors meeting. I was there nearly an hour before it started. There was no discussion of the “matter,” the subject was not broached, let alone any action taken. I work for an attorney, so I utilized the resource and asked the obvious question: Is the matter of Hassler’s comments something that they could discuss in closed session? I got a one word response: “No.” Such discussion or action would not fall under the exclusionary provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

The public silence is deafening.

So much for action.

“….But I’ve come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows…”

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Garbo speaks! (November 12, 2009)

A couple of days ago, I was enjoying a visit with two friends at Starbucks and a well-dressed man in passing, said hello. On his way out he commented offhand about the “nightmarish health care bill” that just passed the US House. He was afraid he’d lose his Medicare, and hated the idea of socialized medicine. Who’d a thunk it?

Never to miss a slice-of-life opportunity, we engaged him in conversation to find out what makes his brand of patriotism tick. The standard tea-bagger fare followed, indeed, our gourmet coffee aficionado had not only made pilgrimage to Washington DC for the Glenn Beck 9/12 event, but had dropped everything last week to attend the anti-health care bill “press conference” on the steps of Capitol Hill.

This rally saw House Republicans standing in front of a crowd holding signs saying, “National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945” — and actor Jon Voight asking of Obama, “Could it be he has had 20 years of subconscious programming by Reverend Wright to damn America?” This programming, of course, has the President ushering America toward some red-hued horizon, socialism uber alles.

From our Starbucks comrade we heard how America’s health care was the best in the world, we shouldn’t fix what isn’t broken, why would people from all around the world fly here to see a doctor? I said just because some people fly around in Lear Jets or G5s, doesn’t mean it would be fair to judge the US transportation system by the actions of those who can afford chartered aircraft. Yes, rich people from around the world come to the US to get top-tier care. But the only equitable approach, if we’re trying to measure the overall quality of our system, is to judge the average experience of US patients, and those numbers clearly show that we are not the best in the world, and that Americans are being fleeced at double the cost other Western industrialized nations pay for their health care. Our system is infected with a culture of profiteering that actually translates into a 45,000 a year body count. It’s immoral and incumbent upon the citizens of our nation to protect the health of our national family by addressing the callous and inhumane nature of our current health care system.

But I digress. This is about Dobbs and Palin for 2012! Lou Dobbs just quit CNN, and Palin’s about to embark upon her “Going Rogue” book tour. Several outlets have reported Dobbs considering a Presidential bid, possibly as an independent, certainly his comments allude to a potential candidacy of some sort,

“Some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving, as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day, and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.”

There’s a few websites attempting to recruit Dobbs like http://loudobbs4president.com/ or http://www.loudobbsforpresiden… — activists related to the Minuteman Project seem to be behind these early efforts at Dobbs 2012, supporting his outspoken positions on illegal immigration.

Maybe Dobbs should team up with Palin for an indie-hit not seen since the likes of Ross “giant suckin’ sound” Perot?

If so, this would be a gift to Democrats and indicative of the last gasps of an obsolete Grand Old Party, emphasizing–old. In a two-party system, if an independent with real legs springs up, it invariably will benefit one of the major parties. In the case of an independent tea-bagger candidacy, this would mean skimming five or ten points off the Republican candidate dooming them electorally.

What’s an interesting dynamic in all this, are the right wing rabble-rousing cheerleaders like Limbaugh and Beck, et al. They don’t have to articulate a message that communicates an inclusive political mindset, in fact, most of their rhetoric sensationalizes — because its show biz — stereotypes — because its show biz — stokes fear — because its show biz, you get the point. Their model is entertainment parked in a political vehicle, ministering to a minority of folks verging on xenophobic affliction, deathly afraid their conception of “homeland” has been stolen away; they are losing their country, and are freaked out about it. Problem is, the right wing media putsch does nothing to build the inclusive consensus necessary for broad-based electoral victory.

Newspapers are dropping like flies, people are increasingly gravitating toward free on-line material (like here at Show Me Progress), and consequently, the sense of any national frame of reference developed through professional journalism is becoming a thing of the past. This further polarizes the views of isolated communities of interest, like the tea-baggers. They are then subjected to the all too entertaining flamboyance of Beck and Limbaugh — which solidifies their boutique worldviews — and voila, you have a prescription for GOP crash-and-burn. Remember Beck and Limbaugh need not build broad support, they can laugh all the way to the bank with 5%.

Ironically, some of the negative aspects of excessive consumerism, greed and profiteering are folding back upon themselves through shows like Beck’s and Limbaugh’s, meaning, because they can profit off of their fear-mongering, and some are so enamored and titillated by this type of rhetoric, it becomes a politically self-defeating process in the end. The repeated pounding by these show biz ideologues reinforces extremist and fringe views, literally creating a political train wreck in slow motion — there’s no “compassionate” in this conservatism, a former Republican mantra that successfully brought in votes. This retro-conservatism, is more a racial-conservatism, if Beck’s and Limbaugh’s arguments are so strictly ideological, pro-Constitution and so forth, why is the tea-bagger movement largely only appealing to southern white males?

Republicans have not succeeded at messaging to minorities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, non-Christians, constituencies growing as a percentage of voters every day. If the tea-baggers continue to heed the call of talk radio demogogues or forward an independent candidacy like that of Palin or Dobbs, we will all witness the last gasps of the old GOP.

GNP: Grand New Party?

What about a new conservative voice?  One that wouldn’t dismiss the need for environmental “conservation” as another attempt to create one-world government? A new conservative voice rediscovering the indispensable check-and-balance on government largess and inefficiency?

Well, I couldn’t sign off this article without mentioning, as a progressive, I share many of the concerns that vanguard conservatives like Ron Paul talk about: fiscal policy, national deficit and debt, foreign polic
y and excessive militarism, institutionalized corruption and campaign finance reform to name a few.

These are systemic issues — enthroned facets of the Federal Government, expansionist limbs, so far, immune to political pruning:

• National Security Apparatus or “Military Industrial Complex”

• Buckley vs. Valeo – Supreme Court case calling money “free-speech”

• Lobbyists manipulating Congress to their own ends and against the people; nation

• “Corporate personhood” – the legal fiction that property is a person

These entrenched institutions are largely helmed by “lifers” — people working for decades — members of Congress or the White House are just considered “temps” compared to the juggernaut trajectory of the Establishment and the Elite that garner that vast majority of the benefits.

What’s similar about the vanguard-right and the vanguard-left, is that there’s a shared desire to prevent tyranny and despotism; this is a quintessential American characteristic.

• The tea-baggers and GOP regulars are unsettled and worried about excessive governmental power that encroaches upon freedom and liberty.

• Progressives are concerned about increasing multi-national conglomerate power wielded globally and dictating to the nations below, destructive to human rights and the environment.

There’s more common ground here, between the vanguard-left and vanguard-right, than meets the eye. Certainly, when transnational corporations collude with governments, well, that might even create a multi-trillion dollar bailout someday. Hmm.

Professor Howard Zinn, in his cardinal work, “A People’s History of the United States”, talks about the “prospect.. for times of turmoil, struggle, but also inspiration”, and offers a vision of what it would take to rid the nation of persistent ills.

“In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people-the employed, the somewhat privileged-are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls…

…There is a chance that such a movement could succeed in doing what the system itself has never done-bring about great change with little violence. This is possible because the more of the 99 percent that begin to see themselves as sharing needs, the more the guards and the prisoners see their common interest, the more the Establishment becomes isolated, ineffectual.”

Throughout our history, the movement to upturn politics as usual through populism has tried to knock on many doors to find the way. Whether from the left or right side of the political spectrum, substantive change has always been allusive, the Establishment masterful at compromising and marginalizing efforts for reform at every turn. The breakthrough needed to connect activists from all sides of the electoral field, is in releasing tired red-team, blue-team antics that produce a lot more circus than results.

What our nation needs is the rebirth of the statesman point-of-view, looking to synthesize the best philosophies available; a third way. This transpartisan ideal may sound fanciful, but with the right compass rose, America can navigate through the constellation of challenges that have emerged on her horizon; and the guiding principles of focusing on the future, what works and where we’re going, may be successful as a radical center approach to move us past the “I’m right, you’re wrong” Superbowl-like triviality of American politics today.

Stay tuned for another riveting Facebook update from Sarah Palin.

This is the twenty-seventh post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

The weekly dead trees edition of the student newspaper, the Muleskinner, was on newsstands today. On page 1, above the fold, was a headline story on the two new members of the University’s Board of Governors:

New Board Members

Appointees look forward to new job, challenges ahead

….”I like the institution [UCM] and am very familiar with it,” [Marvin “Bunky”] Wright said…

…When asked what it feels like to be joining the Board soon after the decision had been made not to renew Podolefsky’s contract, Wright was optimistic about the future of the institution.

“I don’t know that there is any controversy,” Wright said. “There’s been a vote taken and the matter is decided. The main thing the Board has to do is move forward with the University….”

Evidently this was spoken without any sense of irony. If a majority (142) of tenured faculty along with student and community expressions of support don’t count for anything as far as “major stakeholder groups” are concerned, then you could see how someone who expresses “familiarity” with the institution would think that there’s no controversy.

I wonder if Mr. Wright thinks the $80,000 contract for a consultant in the upcoming presidential search (we’re still waiting) the board approved without a Request for Proposals or a bid is not controversial because “there’s been a vote taken and the matter is decided.” That’s a pretty narrow view of accountability for a public entity, don’t you think?

Also in the same edition of the Muleskinner was a letter to the editor written by a student:

….A certain KOKO radio commentator has recently made his feelings blatantly known that practicing Jews and their customs are not welcome in Warrensburg community because they may not fall into line with their own traditions. How can we let such people continue to be the voice of UCM? Where are our American values? We must embrace and learn from all cultures and traditions that wish to be a part of us….

….In the end, we must work together to show the world that Warrensburg is a community of acceptance and not half-hearted tolerance…

And, the paper also had an extensive center section on President Aaron Podolefsky with the headline “Podolefsky Past And Present” discussing the University’s “vision for the future” (approved by the board  in 2006), the University’s name change, the campus Master Plan, and the ESCO (energy) project – all projects during the president’s tenure. The paper quoted Podolefsky, referring to faculty:

“Presidents come and go, board members come and go, but faculty make the institution. When people are willing to stand up and step up front like that, that really makes me [feel] good.”

Moving forward, at least to us, means more Missouri Sunshine Law requests.

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

Last week Hotflash reported on some members of the  Young Americans For Liberty (YAL) Chapter at Washington University who were planning to protest communism while commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall on Monday of this week (11/9).  According to the Student Life Newspaper, they built a makeshift prison camp display, identified as a “Peaceful Justice Social Reeducation Clinic,”  which was inhabited by students representing blood-smeared gulag prisoners.  A YAL participant explained:

I think it was mostly about the Berlin Wall, but I think certain policies that are going on today and certain things in the government, and mostly the health care plan, were reasons that we wanted to host the event …

The display was, however, promptly shut down by the ever so circumspect University administration, citing safety concerns among other reasons:

The University said in a statement Tuesday that the students had not mentioned the display when requesting the space and built the display using power tools without permission and without oversight from the facilities office.

No one can dispute the right of the University to enforce its policies retroactively. Nor could one blame the administration if it wanted to distance itself from potential controversy. However, shutting the display down seems heavy-handed and not very well thought out. Universities, after all, are institutions that ought to be devoted to the rough-and-tumble of ideas – and even the perception of censorship ought to be anathema.

Certainly, if one judges from the student comments attached to the newspaper article, shutting down the display only served to cast the YAL students as victims. And, of course, they and their supporters have been quick to capitalize on this idea with even more hyperbole:

John Burns, an area resident who is not a student but who is involved with the Washington University YAL and participated in the display, said he felt the University censored students in a manner similar to Soviet communists.

“I guess the students at Washington University were in a gulag all along, and the administration proved it through their stifling of free speech,” Burns said.

I’ve exercised restraint in not reminding an evangelical Republican acquaintance of mine that in 2005 he informed me that the Democrats would never win another election. He’s been gracious enough to congratulate me about Obama’s victory, so I’ve held my tongue. Jim is one of the people Paul Krugman described in “Paranoia Strikes Deep”:

When Hofstadter wrote [in 1964, about the paranoid tendencies of the far right], the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

For example, the wingers in St. Charles County are pushing back against the Republican establishment and its failure to deliver. The party organization out there is so disgusted that it has changed its name from the Republican Club to the Conservative Club. Jim left the Democratic party some years back, mainly over the abortion and gay marriage issues, so maybe he should move out there. Hey, if you’re going to give up on social justice in favor of Old Testament castigation and damnation, you better move where the right wingers are actually concerned about that.

In an effort to better align our club with its members’ core beliefs, we

have changed the name of the St. Charles County Republican

Club to the Conservative Club of Missouri.

Reminiscent of Ronald Regan’s description of why he went from being a

Democrat to a being a Republican – “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party,

they left me.” We feel the same is true with the current Republican Party

and its inability to adhere to conservative convictions.

Call us right wing extremist [sic] if you like, but it has become

obvious to us that most of the current crop of Republicans in office at all

levels are not looking out for their constituents, [sic] as a matter of fact

it has become hard to tell the difference between the Parties. Talk

is cheap, and that is what we are getting from our Republican leaders.

What we need is action.

No longer does the Republican Party’s actions reflect their stated

values. Bigger government, ridiculous spending and removing

individual freedoms seems to be the norm. Putting forth the “next in

line” (Roy Blunt) is not in the best interest of the Party. Instead

we need new and fresh faces that have shown themselves willing to take a

stand.

Damn. Some of these wingnuts are getting as hard to herd as the cats in the Democratic party. They want firebrands, I tell you! And they’ve turned to the likes of Bill Hennessy and Dana Loesch for the heated rhetoric they crave. The problem with heated rhetoric, though, is that it may turn out to be hot air. And when it is, no local website is better at spotting it than St. Louis Pushes Back.

PushBack mocked Hennessy and Loesch for threatening Roy Blunt and Todd Akin. Before Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY 23 House race, Hennessy and Loesch held an event in front of City Hall.

Loesch said … that she was giving Missouri Representatives Roy Blunt and Todd Akin “until the end of the day” to release a statement against Scozzafava or else, “we are coming for you.”  She also said earlier … that if they didn’t have the brass to do “what’s right,” then, “we will vote you out!  We will come at you with so much heat, you won’t even know how to handle it!”

Roy Blunt ignored them. Todd Akin missed the deadline but later endorsed Hoffman. PushBack wonders whether they will, in their own words, “put up or shut up.” I’m sure he’ll be following up on whether they do “put up”.

We’ll see how much action Hennessy and Loesch put out to back up that particular threat, but in fact Hennessy does recommend specific action for his followers. It’s pointless and silly, but it creates the illusion that they’re busy. In reprisal against the House for its health care vote, local tea partiers plan to do their damndest to … ruin the economy? That’s right. A sample:

• Make no purchases on November 27, Black Friday, except for basic necessities like food and gasoline
• Put off major purchases if at all possible. This includes cars, appliances, and the like. Instead, hire local, independent mechanic or handyman to bring the ailing items up to serviceability

And, of course:

• Beginning [sic] making very large contributions to worthy opposition candidates, especially for the House of Representatives and U. S. Senate.

PushBack’s response is abso-freakin’-lutely brilliant. I’m just going to cite a couple of his suggestions to the Tea Partiers.

• Stop going to grocery stores. If you can’t find enough food via hunting and gathering, only buy your food from teabagger approved merchants. If there aren’t any in your area, you should order food to be delivered, but make sure you use FedEx so that the government run Post Office doesn’t insert microchips into your food.
• Stop driving cars. Funnel out all of the remaining gasoline from your cars and dump it on your lawn. What use is green grass in a world run by socialist pigs?

Go. Read the whole list. And don’t miss the last item.